Freedom of expression

X shuts down operations in Brazil over censorship dispute

Elon Musk’s media platform X announced last Saturday that it would cease operations in Brazil immediately, citing ‘censorship orders’ from Brazilian judge Alexandre de Moraes. According to X, de Moraes allegedly threatened to arrest one of the company’s legal representatives in Brazil if they did not comply with orders to remove certain content from the platform. X shared images of a document purportedly signed by the judge, stating that the representative, Rachel Nova Conceicao, would face a daily fine and possible arrest if the platform did not comply.

In response, X decided to close its operations in Brazil to protect its staff, although the service remains available to Brazilian users. The Brazilian Supreme Court, where de Moraes serves, declined to comment on the authenticity of the document shared by X.

Musk’s decision follows earlier orders by de Moraes to block specific accounts on X as part of an investigation into ‘digital militias’ accused of spreading fake news during former President Jair Bolsonaro’s government. Musk criticised de Moraes’ decisions, calling them ‘unconstitutional,’ and X initially resisted these rulings.

However, after Musk’s objections, X eventually assured Brazil’s Supreme Court that it would comply with the legal orders, although technical issues reportedly allowed some blocked users to remain active. Musk has since condemned de Moraes as a ‘disgrace to justice’ and rejected the judge’s alleged ‘secret censorship’ demands.

TikTok challenges US law over China ties in court

TikTok has contested claims made by the US Department of Justice in a federal appeals court, asserting that the government has inaccurately characterised the app’s ties to China. The company is challenging a law that mandates its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, to divest TikTok’s US assets by January 19 or face a ban. TikTok argues that the app’s content recommendation engine and user data are securely stored in the US, with content moderation conducted domestically.

The law, signed by President Joe Biden in April, reflects concerns over potential national security risks, with accusations that TikTok allows Chinese authorities to access American data and influence content. TikTok, however, contends that the law infringes on free speech rights, arguing that its content curation should be protected by the US Constitution.

Oral arguments for the case are scheduled for September 16, just before the presidential election on November 5. As the debate heats up, both Republican and Democratic presidential candidates have expressed contrasting views on TikTok, with Donald Trump opposing a ban and Kamala Harris embracing the platform as part of her campaign.

The legislation also impacts app stores and internet hosting services, barring support for TikTok unless it is sold. The swift passage of the measure in Congress highlights ongoing fears regarding data security and espionage risks associated with the app.

Social media Bluesky gains popularity in UK after Musk’s riot remarks

Bluesky, a social media platform, has reported a significant increase in signups in the United Kingdom recently as users look for alternatives to Elon Musk’s X. The increase follows Musk’s controversial remarks on ongoing riots in the UK, which have driven users, including several Members of Parliament, to explore other platforms. The company announced that it had experienced a 60% rise in activity from UK accounts.

Musk has faced criticism for inflaming tensions after riots in Britain were sparked by misinformation surrounding the murder of three girls in northern England. The Tesla CEO allegedly used X to disseminate misleading information to his vast audience, including a post claiming that civil war in Britain was ‘inevitable.’ The case has prompted Prime Minister Keir Starmer to respond and increased calls for the government to accelerate the implementation of online content regulations.

Bluesky highlighted that the UK had the most signups of any country for five of the last seven days. Once supported by Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey, the platform is among the many apps vying to replace Twitter after Musk’s turbulent takeover in late 2022.

As of July, Bluesky’s monthly active user base was approximately 688,568, which is small compared to X’s 76.9 million users, according to Similarweb, a digital market intelligence firm. Despite its smaller size, the recent surge in UK signups to Bluesky appears to be a growing interest in alternative social media platforms.

Russia blocks Signal messaging app

Russia’s state communications watchdog, Roskomnadzor, has announced a nationwide block on the encrypted messaging app Signal. The restriction, reported by Interfax, is attributed to Signal’s failure to comply with Russian anti-terrorism laws aimed at preventing the use of messaging apps for extremist activities.

Users across Russia, including Moscow and St Petersburg, experienced significant disruptions with Signal, which approximately one million Russians use for secure communications. Complaints about the app surged to over 1,500, indicating widespread issues. While Signal appeared to function normally for some users with a VPN, it was inaccessible for others trying to register new accounts or use it without a VPN.

Mikhail Klimarev, a telecom expert, confirmed that this block represents a deliberate action by Russian authorities rather than a technical malfunction. He noted that this is the first instance of Signal being blocked in Russia, marking a significant escalation in the country’s efforts to control encrypted communication platforms.

Roskomnadzor’s action follows previous attempts to restrict other messaging services, such as Telegram, which faced a similar blocking attempt in 2018. Despite these efforts, Telegram’s availability in Russia remained relatively unaffected. Signal still needs to comment on the current situation.

Meta wins appeal against anti-vaccine group

Meta Platforms (META.O) has successfully defended against an appeal by Children’s Health Defense (CHD), an anti-vaccine group founded by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., challenging Meta’s censorship of Facebook posts containing vaccine misinformation. The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena, California, ruled that CHD did not prove Meta was influenced or coerced by federal officials to suppress anti-vaccine content, upholding a June 2021 decision by US District Judge Susan Illston.

CHD sued Meta in 2020, claiming its constitutional rights were violated when Meta flagged ‘vaccine misinformation’ as false and restricted the group’s advertising on Facebook. Meta argued its actions were part of efforts to curb the spread of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation, including prohibiting claims that the vaccines are ineffective and directing users to authoritative sources like the World Health Organisation for accurate information.

Circuit Judge Eric Miller, appointed by former President Donald Trump, emphasised that Meta, as a private company, has the right under the First Amendment to regulate content on its platform and promote its views on vaccine safety and efficacy, even if they align with the government’s stance. The court also dismissed claims against the Poynter Institute and Science Feedback, which help Meta evaluate content accuracy.

Children’s Health Defense expressed disappointment with the ruling and is considering further legal actions. Circuit Judge Daniel Collins dissented partially, suggesting that CHD could seek an injunction on free speech claims. However, he agreed other claims, such as those for monetary damages, should be dismissed. The decision underscores the ongoing debate around content moderation and free speech in the digital age.

UK considers revising Online Safety Act amid riots

The British government is considering revisions to the Online Safety Act in response to a recent wave of racist riots allegedly fueled by misinformation spread online. The act, passed in October but not yet enforced, currently allows the government to fine social media companies up to 10% of their global turnover if they fail to remove illegal content, such as incitements to violence or hate speech. However, proposed changes could extend these penalties to platforms that permit ‘legal but harmful’ content, like misinformation, to thrive.

Britain’s Labour government inherited the act from the Conservatives, who had spent considerable time adjusting the bill to balance free speech with the need to curb online harms. A recent YouGov poll found that 66% of adults believe social media companies should be held accountable for posts inciting criminal behaviour, and 70% feel these companies are not sufficiently regulated. Additionally, 71% of respondents criticised social media platforms for not doing enough to combat misinformation during the riots.

In response to these concerns, Cabinet Office Minister Nick Thomas-Symonds announced that the government is prepared to revisit the act’s framework to ensure its effectiveness. London Mayor Sadiq Khan also voiced his belief that the law is not ‘fit for purpose’ and called for urgent amendments in light of the recent unrest.

Why does it matter?

The riots, which spread across Britain last week, were triggered by false online claims that the perpetrator of a 29 July knife attack, which killed three young girls, was a Muslim migrant. As tensions escalated, X owner Elon Musk contributed to the chaos by sharing misleading information with his large following, including a statement suggesting that civil war in Britain was ‘inevitable.’ Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s spokesperson condemned these comments, stating there was ‘no justification’ for such rhetoric.

X faces scrutiny for hosting extremist content

Concerns are mounting over content shared by the Palestinian militant group Hamas on X, the social media platform owned by Elon Musk. The Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT), which includes major companies like Facebook, Microsoft, and YouTube, is reportedly worried about X’s continued membership and position on its board, fearing it undermines the group’s credibility.

The Sunday Times reported that X has become the most accessible platform to find Hamas propaganda videos, along with content from other UK-proscribed terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Researchers were able to locate such videos within minutes on X.

Why does it matter?

These concerns come as X faces criticism for reducing its content moderation capabilities. The GIFCT’s independent advisory committee expressed alarm in its 2023 report, citing significant reductions in online trust and safety measures on specific platforms, implicitly pointing to X.

Elon Musk’s approach to turning X into a ‘free speech’ platform has included reinstating previously banned extremists, allowing paid verification, and cutting much of the moderation team. The shift has raised fears about X’s ability to manage extremist content effectively. Despite being a founding member of GIFCT, X still needs to meet its financial obligations.

Additionally, the criticism Musk faced in Great Britain indicates the complex and currently unsolvable policy governance question: whether to save the freedom of speech or scrutinise in addition the big tech social media owners and focus on community safety?

Great Britain scenario..

Elon Musk faced criticism for his social media posts, which many believe have fueled ongoing riots in Britain. Musk shared riot footage and made controversial statements, including predicting a civil war and criticizing Prime Minister Keir Starmer for focusing on speech policing instead of community safety. The unrest was sparked by false online claims that a Taylor Swift-themed dance class stabbing involved an illegal Muslim immigrant, though the suspect is actually a 17-year-old from Cardiff with Rwandan Christian roots. The misinformation allegedly led to anti-immigrant protests and civil disorder across Britain, with violence targeting mosques, asylum seeker housing, and police. Prime Minister Starmer condemned social media companies, particularly X, for enabling the spread of violent disinformation. Government officials, including Technology Secretary Peter Kyle and Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, have vowed action against tech platforms, though Britain’s Online Safety Act won’t be fully effective until next year. Meanwhile, the EU’s Digital Services Act, which Britain is no longer part of, is already in effect.

YouTube faces uncertain future in Russia

As Russia tightens its grip on independent media, YouTube remains a vital platform for free expression, particularly for opposition voices. However, this may only last for a while longer. Recent mass outages reported by Russian internet services signal a possible shift, with lawmakers blaming Google’s outdated infrastructure for the slowdowns—a claim Google disputes.

The video platform, which has served as a key outlet for dissenting opinions, faces potential blocking in Russia. With independent media largely banned, YouTube has become a crucial source of opposition content, such as the widely viewed video by the late Alexei Navalny accusing President Vladimir Putin of corruption.

Experts warn that banning YouTube could severely impact online freedom and disrupt Russia’s internet connectivity. The widespread use of VPNs to bypass restrictions could also strain the country’s internet infrastructure, further complicating the situation.

Why does it matter?

The Russian government has historically throttled internet traffic to silence dissent, but it now relies on a more sophisticated censorship system. Despite the growing pressure, YouTube remains accessible, likely due to fears of public backlash and the potential strain on Russia’s networks.

As Moscow encourages users to switch to domestic platforms like VK Video, the future of YouTube in Russia hangs in the balance. While some non-political content creators may migrate, opposition channels could struggle to maintain their reach if forced off YouTube.

EU scrutiny of X could expand due to UK riots

The European Commission’s ongoing investigation into social media platform X, owned by Elon Musk, could factor in the company’s handling of harmful content during the recent UK riots.

Charges against X were issued last month under the Digital Services Act (DSA), which mandates stricter controls on illegal content and public security risks for large online platforms.

Although the UK is no longer part of the EU, content shared in Britain that violates DSA rules might still reach European users, potentially breaching the law. Recent events in Britain, where far-right and anti-Muslim groups exploited the fatal stabbing of three young girls to spread disinformation and incite violence, have raised concerns.

The European Commission acknowledged that while the DSA does not cover actions outside the EU, content visible in Europe from the UK could influence their proceedings against X. The company has yet to respond to these developments.

Maduro blocks X in Venezuela amid election dispute

President Nicolás Maduro has imposed a 10-day block on access to the social media platform X (formerly Twitter) in Venezuela, accusing its owner, Elon Musk, of using the platform to promote hatred following the country’s disputed presidential election. Reports from Caracas indicated that by Thursday night, posts on X were no longer loading on several major telephone services, including the state-owned Movilnet.

Maduro, in a speech after a pro-government march, claimed that Musk violated the platform’s own rules and incited hatred. He also accused X of being used by his political opponents to create unrest in Venezuela. As part of his response, Maduro signed a resolution from the National Telecommunications Commission (Conatel) to remove X from circulation in the country for ten days. However, he did not elaborate on the process involved.

The tension between Maduro and Musk escalated after the disputed 28 July presidential election, where Venezuelan electoral authorities declared Maduro the winner. However, opposition candidate Edmundo González claimed victory, citing records from 80% of the electronic voting machines. Musk criticised Maduro on X, calling him a dictator and accusing him of electoral fraud. Since the election, Maduro has expressed a desire to regulate social media in Venezuela, alleging that platforms like X are being used to threaten his supporters and create anxiety across the country.